WiTp-AE is the evolution of WiTp,which is the evolution of Uncommon Valor. We have with WiTp-AE the what will be War in Europe. The correct comparison for WiTe is to Uncommon Valor. And yea,I have stuck around these boards since before WiTp came out so it did take about a decade to get from Uncommon valor to WiTp-AE. And there were gripes about uncommon valor and why is it taking so long for WiTp threads aplenty.

I coined the term 'Sovie-o-phile' to identify a market segment and its consumer attitudes toward WitE. The Sovie-o-phile market segment appears to me to be the market segment that 2by3 most wishes to please with the WitE design. This symbiosis results (I assert) in group-think between designers/programmers and the "sovie-o-phile" market segment, with the latter forming a protective circle of bias and dismissal around critics from at a minimum, my market segment (people who believe design outcome produces a game that pits a highly optimized Soviet army against a historically tightly constrained Axis, resulting in predictable and dull outcomes when I play either side).

I think Sovie-o-phile is the wrong way to categorize this. It's not about Soviet Fanboy or German Fanboy. There are a lot of people who believe that a game such as this should follow history. I've seen the same arguments in WITPAE. The EXACT same arguments, countless times. Japan should have no chance. Germany should have no chance. These people, IMO, don't seem to realize that every good game has the chance for both sides to win, whether historical or not. It's a game and it needs to be fun for both.

That being said, I'm starting to change my tune concerning Germany in WITE. It's possible to destroy enough of the Red Army in 41 and 42, as well as capture enough Manpower areas, to be able to win in 44/45 as Germany. The game is getting more balanced. Pelton is a perfect case in point. It requires an experienced German player to the degree of Pelton and the many, many games he's played. At this point, he knows the ins and outs of the game and Germany to a degree that, I would bet, no one else does.

Is that a problem? Yes. There won't be many players who stick with the game like Pelton does. Therefore, there won't be many German players. I look at the AARs and the Opponents wanted and it just isn't to the level of WITPAE. It should be much greater. It's newer. Definately more exciting turn to turn. But it doesn't have the same draw. Why? Because it isn't balanced yet from a game perspective, nothing to do with history. WITE requires an expert German player. WITPAE is much more balanced and doesn't require an expert Japanese player, in spite of the many complaints of Allied "Fanboys". Allies generally want a cake walk over from 43 on, which is historical. The "game" keeps Japan into it through 44 and 45, providing no catastrophes.

Good post, that I mostly agree with.

The game should not be a movie or documentary of history, but try hard to, among other fixes still taking place, achieve better historical plausibility and eliminate the ridiculous exploits which are inevitable in any game. Some exploits have been addressed but I feel more is needed.

Exploits, on both sides, are still getting a pat on the back, AAR "standard openings", or why didn't you gank your opponent better, but this is not great arm-chair generalship, I suggest.

There needs to be more risk and reward, unpredictability and yes, more, historical plausibility; No AP cost to breaking down divisions willy-nilly in the face of strong or unknown enemy forces (more FOW), less hard-code, 5 hexes, 20 hexes; calculation percentages, these should all have a variation, +1/-1, +2/-2, +5%/-5%, to simulate local conditions or some unpredictability, including leaders, and more.

I am not playing, except vs.the AI, right now because I just do not want to get ganked by exploits that I don't think should always be successful, based on how much time investment goes into the game. Of course, you should be allowed to try almost anything, but to always get away with it, no.

We don't have much to report other than progress continues. One interesting addition is that a unit OB can be classified as Multi-Role, allowing it to be used either as an on map combat unit or as a support unit. These units can also be set to split into three parts when in "support" mode or remain as one unit when in support mode. British Tank Brigades and American Cavalry Groups are examples of Multi-Role units. Likely in WitE 2.0, Soviet Tank Brigades will be Multi-Role units. These units can change back and forth between support mode and on map mode during a scenario.

If I may be so bold as to suggest that use of these multi-role units could be a nice way of helping to bridge the gap in terms of the evolution of Russian artillery units (Regts -> Bdes -> Divs).